Northwestern National Ins. v. Agra

NO. 80-484
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1981
NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
a corporation,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
VS .
AGRA-STEEL CORPORATION, e t a l . ,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f F l a t h e a d
Honorable James M. S a l a n s k y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and P h i l l i p s , K a l i s p e l l ,
Montana
F o r Respondent :
Warden, C h r i s t i a n s e n and Johnson, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
A s t l e and A s t l e , K a l i s p e l l , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : May 28, 1 9 8 1
Decided: August 6 , 1 9 8 1
Filed:
A U G 6 - 1988
m
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.
Defendant, Agra S t e e l , a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d
August 1 2 , 1980, i n t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d
County, f o l l o w i n g a t r i a l b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . The judgment
awarded Northwestern N a t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e Company $20,000 w i t h
a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t and awarded $24,319 t o James R. Johnson and
B a r b a r a E. Johnson. The damages r e s u l t e d from b r e a c h of
e x p r e s s and i m p l i e d w a r r a n t i e s c o v e r i n g a s t e e l s t o r a g e
b u i l d i n g p u r c h a s e d from Agra S t e e l by t h e Johnsons and
i n s u r e d by Northwestern N a t i o n a l . A heavy s n o w f a l l c a u s e d
t h e roof t o sag.
Approximately one y e a r a f t e r t h e r o o f was damaged,
Northwestern N a t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e Company p a i d t h e Johnsons
$20,000 under a n i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t c o v e r i n g t h e b u i l d i n g .
Northwestern t h e n sued Agra S t e e l t h r o u g h e x e r c i s i n g subroga-
tion rights. The Johnsons a l s o b r o u g h t s u i t c l a i m i n g damages
i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $20,000 p a i d under t h e i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t .
The a c t i o n s were t h e r e a f t e r c o n s o l i d a t e d and t r i e d b e f o r e
t h e c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury.
C o n s o l i d a t e d judgments a g a i n s t Agra S t e e l were o r d e r e d
August 11, 1980, and n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d
August 1.2 and s e r v e d upon c o u n s e l f o r Northwestern ~ a t i o n a l
I n s u r a n c e and Agra S t e e l . Counsel f o r t h e Johnsons was n o t
served. Agra S t e e l f i l e d i t s n o t i c e of a p p e a l September 2 2 ,
4 1 d a y s from n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment. On September 2 4 ,
t h e r e s p o n d e n t s made a motion t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o
dismiss t h e appeal a s untimely f i l e d . Argument on t h e
motion t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l was h e a r d October 7 and on
October 27, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found and o r d e r e d :
" ... t h e C l e r k of t h i s C o u r t n e g l e c t e d t o send
N o t i c e of E n t r y of Judgment t o d e f e n d a n t ' s co-
c o u n s e l i n t h e S t a t e o f M i s s o u r i ; t h a t t h e same
may have caused c o n f u s i o n on t h e p a r t of such co-
c o u n s e l a s t o when t h e a p p e a l t i m e commenced run-
n i n g ; i t a p p e a r s t o t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e same con-
s t i t u t e s excusable neglect;
" T h e r e f o r e , p l a i n t i f f s ' Motion t o D i s m i s s i s
hereby d e n i e d ; t h e t i m e w i t h i n which d e f e n d a n t
may f i l e i t s n o t i c e of a p p e a l i s h e r e b y extended
t h i r t y days. Dated t h i s 27th day of O c t o b e r ,
1980."
Agra S t e e l d i d n o t f i l e a s u b s e q u e n t n o t i c e of a p p e a l ,
o s t e n s i b l y r e l y i n g upon t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l f i l e d September
I n e v e r y a p p e a l t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n i s t h a t of j u r i s d i c -
tion. Hand v. Hand ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 1 3 1 Mont. 571, 576, 312 P.2d
990, 992. B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g w e must c o n s i d e r whether o r n o t
Agra S t e e l p r o p e r l y p e r f e c t e d i t s r i g h t of a p p e a l . Appellant
had t h e d u t y t o p e r f e c t i t s a p p e a l i n t h e manner and w i t h i n
t h e t i m e l i m i t s p r o v i d e d by law. Absent s u c h
compliance, t h i s C o u r t d o e s n o t a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o
e n t e r t a i n and d e t e r m i n e t h e m e r i t s of t h e a p p e a l . P r i c e v.
Zunchich ( 1 9 8 0 ) , -Mont. -, 612 P.2d 1296, 37 St.Rep.
Rule 4 ( a ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., states: " [A] n a p p e a l s h a l l
b e t a k e n by f i l i n g a n o t i c e of a p p e a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . "
Rule 5, M.R.App.Civ.P., provides:
"The t i m e w i t h i n which a n a p p e a l from a judgment
o r a n o r d e r must b e t a k e n s h a l l be 30 d a y s from
t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , e x c e p t t h a t i n c a s e s where
s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment i s re-
q u i r e d by Rule 7 7 ( d ) of t h e Montana Rules of
C i v i l P r o c e d u r e t h e t i m e s h a l l be 30 d a y s from
t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment ...
". . . Upon showing of e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t , t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t may e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g
t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l by any p a r t y f o r a p e r i o d
n o t t o exceed 30 d a y s from t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e
o r i g i n a l t i m e p r e s c r i b e d by t h i s r u l e . "
I n t h i s c a s e t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d
August 12 and s e r v e d by m a i l . The o r i g i n a l time f o r g i v i n g
n o t i c e of a p p e a l t h e r e f o r e e x p i r e d 34 d a y s l a t e r on
September 1 5 , Rule 2 1 M.R.App.Civ.P. The maximum a l l o w a b l e
t i m e p e r i o d w i t h i n which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d g r a n t a n
e x t e n s i o n of t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l e x p i r e d
October 15. Z e l l v. Z e l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 496, 565 P.2d
311.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n i t s o r d e r of October 27, d e n i e d
r e s p o n d e n t s ' motion t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l and e x t e n d e d t h e
t i m e f o r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e u n t i l November 27. The o r d e r was
e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e i t g r a n t e d an e x t e n s i o n of t i m e beyond t h e
l i m i t s of Rule 5 , M.R.App.Cil7.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d
n o t a c t a f t e r October 15. The o n l y n o t i c e of a p p e a l h e r e on
f i l e i s one f i l e d o u t of t i m e . N timely o r d e r has extended
o
the time.
W h o l d Agra S t e e l , by f a i l i n g t o f i l e a t i m e l y n o t i c e
e
of a p p e a l , h a s f a i l e d t o p e r f e c t i t s r i g h t of a p p e a l . We,
t h e r e f o r e , l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e m e r i t s and must
dismiss t h i s appeal.
W e concur:
Chief ~ u s t i c e
Justices !